DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 419 368 EF 005 043

AUTHOR Earthman, Glen I.; Lemasters, Linda

TITLE Where Children Learn: A Discussion of How a Facility Affects
Learning.
PUB DATE 1998-02-00
NOTE 27p.
PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; *Correlation; *Educational
Environment; *Educational Facilities; Elementary Secondary
Education; Learning; Literature Reviews

ABSTRACT
Often during budget time, school boards are faced with the
dilemma of whether to designate funds for teachers and teaching materials or
for buses and buildings. Frequently, this leads to the impression that buses
and buildings consume too much of the budget and have no direct relationship
to the student. This report examines the validity of this impression. It
provides a definition of what constitutes part of a facility and includes
features such as color, maintenance, age, classroom structure, climate
conditions, student density, noise, and lighting. Research on the
relationships between facilities and student achievement, as well as
performance and attitudes is reviewed. The report describes the difficulties
inherent in this kind of research, and examines some of the research
syntheses that have focused on the correlation between student learning and
the condition of facilities. Studies of facilities' variables reported that
student achievement scores were higher when windows, floors, heat, roofs,
locker conditions, ceilings, laboratory conditions, age of the facility,
lighting, interior paint, clean floors, and cosmetic conditions in general
were rated above standard by school staff. Studies suggested that the
facilities also affected attitudes and behaviors. It is suggested that the
place where students learn can encourage good student behaviors. (RJM)

********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
me um im um me m m Ns

0000000000000000

WHERE CHILDREN LEARN

A Discussion of How a Facility Affects Learning

Glen I. Earthman
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
Blacksburg, Virginia 240602
(540) 231-2001
earthman@edfacilities.org
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Linda Lemasters Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
Gloucester County Public Schools This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Gloucester, Virginia 23061.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
(804) 693-5304
Points of view or opinions stated in this
lemaster@admin.sbo.gc.k12.va.us document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.

Virginia Educational Facility Planners

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
Annual Meeting DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
Blacksburg, Virginia
-6/en Fa 1,21.0
February 23-24, 1998

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
0003000000000000

72)
NM EN MN NMI INN MN MN IMO UM NM MI NM IIII1 NM MI I=

WHERE CHILDREN LEARN

A Discussion of How a Facility Effects Learning

INTRODUCTION

Often during budget time, school boards are faced with the dilemma of whether to designate

funds for teachers and teaching materials or buses and buildings. Indeed, the interpretation is that

buses and buildings consume more than their "fair" share and have no direct relationship to the

learner. This presentation will look at the validity of this interpretation.

Before looking at the research, however, a definition is needed of what will be considered as part

of the facility. For the purpose of this discussion the following will be considered: color,

maintenance, age, classroom structure, climate conditions, density, noise, and lighting.

Research on facilities and student achievement, performance, and attitudes was reviewed by

Weinstein in 1979 and McGuffey in 1982. These researchers provided syntheses of 232 studies. There

have been many studies completed since Weinstein's and McGuffey's reviews in 1979 and 1982;
5
5
4
 MO MI MN MN MI OM IMO MN MI III1 IMO

therefore, Lemasters' (1997) synthesis was conducted for the ensuing years. The findings from the

three syntheses indicated that when school boards put funds in line items other than teachers and

instructional materials, they continue indirectly to contribute to improved instruction.

DIFFICULTIES OF DOING SUCH RESEARCH

In looking at the research concerning facilities, one must make conclusions that weigh the

difficulties of control in educational research. It is difficult in the educational setting to randomly

assign teachers and students and to have the funding to randomly change the physical settings. There

are grave problems in education in trying to match teaching methods, student abilities, and physical

learning climates while conducting research. There may be moral questions as to the appropriateness

of doing such and making the research public, as well as legal questions of privacy.

THE McGUFFEY AND WEINSTEIN SYNTHESES

There will be a review of the conclusions that are drawn -from the research, looking at the

information that the research provides the educator and the building designer. Two syntheses by

McGuffey (1982) and Weinstein (1979) will be reviewed. Finally, conclusions from the those two
NM INN MN EMI ION MI NM MI MR INN NMI I11

syntheses will be compared to the more recent research by Lemasters (1997) and included in this

discussion.

Weinstein

Weinstein conducted her research synthesis at the time that educators were involved in the open

education programs and the open space school. Much of the research she presented is probably less

relevant today than 30 years ago, as open space classrooms were very popular during the late 1960's

and early 1970's. However, there have been recent articles in design manuals that seem to indicate

that the designers, at least, may be considering open space designs once again. Her work probably did

not assist the educator or design professional very much, as one could conclude from her study of the

research that students perform just as well in an open space classroom as in a standard classroom.

She did say that the as far as non-achievement behaviors were concerned there was considerable

evidence that the physical environment did have an influence. High student density in the studies she

cited contributed to dissatisfaction, decreased social interaction, and increased aggression on the part

of the students. She also found that "soft" classrooms, which were described as student friendly,

were positively associated with better attendance, greater participation in classroom work, and
7
8
MN NIB MI ION IIIII MI UM MO MI MI NM EN NMI NMI NM IMO

positive attitudes towards teachers and classmates. She encouraged further research as she believed

that more positive student attitudes and behaviors may result in increased student achievement.

McGuffey

McGuffey put forth two main conclusions: old and obsolete buildings do have a negative effect

upon the learning process of students, and safe, modern, and controlled environment facilities enhance

the learning process. He also stated that school facilities may have a differential impact upon the

performance of students in different grades and subjects. Whatever impact school facilities may have

upon students may be greater in certain grade levels and subject areas than in others. The longevity

and student age factors may play a part in determining the effect a building has upon the users.

School Building Age: McGuffey reviewed seven studies and building age was significant as a

contributor to student achievement and behavior. It was significant, as well, that building age was a

surrogate for variables such as condition of the building, thermal control, proper lighting, acoustical

control, condition of laboratories, and aesthetic conditions.

Thermal Factors: Eight of the nine studies found a significant relationship between a controlled

environment and student achievement.

8

11
10
EN OM NM =I MN MO MI MI

Visual Factors: McGuffey found more studies in this areas than in any other single area. Good

lighting quality was found to be positively related to increase in student achievement and performance.

Color and Interior Painting: There were four studies fourid that color had an impact upon student

achievement.

Hearing Factors. Unwanted noise at high decibel levels had an adverse effect upon learning;

however, the noise level of noise must be at the extreme level to have significant impact.

Amount of Space: McGuffey discovered no significant findings.

Building Maintenance: Properly maintained facilities were found to improve student attitudes.

Size of School: The larger the school the higher the student achievement was.

Lighting: Windowless facilities, underground facilities, site size, were not found 'rto have

significant relationships on student performance.

Although McGuffey found that the explainable variance in- learning that can be attributed to the

school building is small, it is a variable over which the designer and educator has control.

9
12 13
OM MI MN MN 11. OM INE MO I=

THE LEMASTERS SYNTHESIS

Age of the Facility

Students had higher achievement scores in newer facilities. Indeed, as the age of the facilities

decreased, there was a corresponding increase in scores in mathematics, reading, and composition.

There were fewer discipline incidents in newer facilities.

Attendance records were better in the new facilities.

Social climate factors perceived by students were considerably more favorable in a new school.

Condition of the Facility

As the condition of the facility improved, achievement scores improved.

Stimulating environments promoted positive attitudes in students.

Higher student achievement was associated with schools with better science laboratories.

Furthermore, attitudes toward the science classroom predicted science achievement.

There was a consistent pattern of higher achievement in air conditioned schools.

Achievement was greater in facilities that allowed for individual preferences for heat.

10
15
14
MO NM NM IMO

Color of the Indoor Facilities

Higher student achievement was associated with schools with pastel painted walls.

There seemed to be a cause-effect relationship between the variables of color and light and

students' blood pressures.

Relaxing shades of blue significantly reduced blood pressure.

Unrelated Noise on the Outside of the building

Higher student achievement was associated with schools with less external noise.

Outside noise caused students to be dissatisfied with their classrooms.

Excessive temperatures and noise caused stress in students.

Light inside Facilities

There seemed to be a cause-effect relationship between the variables of color and light and

students' blood pressures.

Under some conditions, classrooms having fluorescent lighting without an ultra-violet component

had higher absence rates. Classrooms with full-spectrum lighting with ultra violet content had a

11

10 17
IN111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

significant positive effect on attendance. In general, light with ultra-violet content appeared to

improve student health.

Light had a positive effect on achievement.

Daylight in the classroom seemed to foster higher achievement.

Density in the Classroom

Students seek areas of privacy in the classroom. Students were most often not comfortable in low

privacy areas.

Open-plan classrooms had higher levels of off-task behavior. Students spent their time in less

educationally valuable ways in more open classroom units.

Students experienced more anxiety in the open-plan classrooms.

Density was a significant predictor of task inattention.

Overcrowding had a negative impact on student achievement in poorer school districts.

Openness of the classroom perimeter explained a significant proportion of the variance in

absenteeism, task inattention, and fidgeting.

12
19
18
= SIN OM NIS ON NEI I= I= MO MI SINN INN SON SIE

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS

As was stated in the introduction, the General Accounting, Office (GAO) suggested fourteen

million students attend schools needing extensive repair or replacement. According to Senator

Moseley-Braun (press release, June 21, 1996),

Crumbling schools is not just an inner city problem. It is not a problem for poor children,
or for minority children. . . it is an American problem--and it relates directly to our
future. . . .America can't compete if our students can't learn; and our students can't learn
if their schools are falling down.

From state and federal documents presented in the GAO study and from the available research on

how the facility affects student achievement and behavior, it is illogical that resources are not

available to address maintenance, renovation, and construction needs. In the State of Virginia, for

example, the allocation for maintenance of facilities is very small. The funding is static, as the

legislature often lowers the allocation when the budget is tight-. As for the construction of new

facilities, the Commonwealth provides only funds for loans. There are many problems contributing to

this lack of action.

13
2.
2.0
MI MO I= MO MI MI I=

However, Virginia is not the only state that responds to facility needs in such a manner. There

are approximately thirty-three more who follow such a funding ,pattern, leaving the place where the

student learns as a less than high priority item in the state budget. Perhaps the proposed initiatives

of President Clinton for improving the school buildings of the country will move the states toward

action.

With this possibility of increased fund, designers and educators need to become knowledgeable

about the data from the research. Thus, when the funds become available, designers can incorporate

the available research into their designs and school boards will make researched based decisions at

budget time.

SUMMARY

In summary, student achievement scores were higher when windows, floors, heat, roofs, locker

conditions, ceilings, laboratory conditions, age of the facility, lighting, interior paint, mopped floors,

cosmetic conditions in general were rated above standard by school staffs. Studies suggested that the

facility often affected attitudes and behaviors as well.

14
23
22
 OM MN ION MO NM I= NMI

With all of the many elements within the educational process that are outside the control of the

educator, it is possible to provide a school building that exemplifies to the student the importance

that the community, the state, or the nation places on education. The place where students learn can

encourage good student behaviors and optimal student achievement.

25
15

24
 SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Earthman, G. I. (1996, July). Review of research on the relationship between school buildings,

student achievement, and student behavior. Position paper for the Council of Educational Facility

Planners, International, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Lemasters, L. K. (1997). A synthesis of studies pertaining to facilities, student achievement,

and student behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

McGuffey, C. W. (1982). Facilities. In Chapter 10, W. Herbert (Ed.), Improving educational

standards and productivity (pp. 237-288). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.

Weinstein, C. S. (1979, Fall). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research.

Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.

2E; 16 27
 0
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE
(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
Title: tk, NI( Chl Oar> Learn. A D;scussion 02- How a -:(ciqy
-P+Cccc\-s Le_o,m\r1
Author(s): gecC-4101an L.) a (lc\ rnasVers, Linda
Corporate Source: Publication Date:

-Ftb I qq"
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2i
Level Level 2A Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival and dissemination in microfiche and In electronic media reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy. for ERIC archival collection subscribers only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.

If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproductio'n from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign Printed Name/Position/Title:

here,-; 0,1 Earki,(Y)an irtc-1-or

Telephone:
please °A,1 t:-)711A bets 4nol., tde rda calon ci/ -1-4-c;1;kies I22q
115 0 D 5u41 -e 2200 E-Mail Address: /-\ A_
ear-44)m Oft (4) eAtelCi Date7)221
p:/
bac 45 61 V .2-41 0 110
(over)
 4

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities
1750 Kraft Drive, Suite 2200
Blacksburg, VA 24060

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
1100 West Street, 2nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598

Telephone: 301-497-4080
Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263
e-mail: ericfac@inet.ed.gov
WWW: hftp://ericfac.piccard.csc.com

EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)

PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.